Rosquist v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

Second Circuit

Rosquist v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

45 F. App'x 78

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 17, 2002

DocketDocket No. 02-7182

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 F. App'x 78 (Rosquist v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosquist v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 45 F. App'x 78 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

George Rosquist appeals from a judgement by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sif-ton, J.) dismissing his second amended complaint. We affirm for substantially the reasons in the district court’s opinion. Rosquist v. Richard C. Babinecz, CV-99-1531 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2002). We also affirm the district court’s June 22, 2001 order denying Rosquist’s motion for recu-sal as we see no abuse of discretion; and we affirm its August 15, 2001 order amending the caption by deleting Consolidated Edison of New York and the City of [79]*79New York, since they have been previously dismissed from this suit.

Finally, we dismiss Rosquist’s purported appeal from the district court’s September 8, 1999 order based on our previous affir-mance of this order on appeal. See Ros-quist v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 208 F.3d 203 (Table) (2d Cir.2000).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

George Rosquist appeals from a judgement by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sif-ton, J.) dismissing his second amended complaint. We affirm for substantially the reasons in the district court’s opinion. Rosquist v. Richard C. Babinecz, CV-99-1531 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2002). We also affirm the district court’s June 22, 2001 order denying Rosquist’s motion for recu-sal as we see no abuse of discretion; and we affirm its August 15, 2001 order amending the caption by deleting Consolidated Edison of New York and the City of [79]*79New York, since they have been previously dismissed from this suit.

Finally, we dismiss Rosquist’s purported appeal from the district court’s September 8, 1999 order based on our previous affir-mance of this order on appeal. See Ros-quist v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 208 F.3d 203 (Table) (2d Cir.2000).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. App'x 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosquist-v-consolidated-edison-co-of-ny-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack